I have a gun control question

#276
#276
LSU-SIU said:
Well, the basic principle is life, liberty and pursue happiness.. it is not wise to necessarily define those things because over time things change.
Click to expand...

I agree. but again how are those things defined? I find it intellectually dishonest to fall back to such blanket terms as they are such catch alls. which I would agree is what we want, as many rights/Rights as possible. but I don't see how you can actually argue that your right of liberty is being denied by a law unless you are defining your liberty through that law or otherwise agreed upon definitions.
 
#277
#277
LouderVol said:
I agree. but again how are those things defined? I find it intellectually dishonest to fall back to such blanket terms as they are such catch alls. which I would agree is what we want, as many rights/Rights as possible. but I don't see how you can actually argue that your right of liberty is being denied by a law unless you are defining your liberty through that law or otherwise agreed upon definitions.
Click to expand...

I can understand the confusion because 99% of the population believe laws are always written down and are exactly detailed defined. I don't think your questions are wrong - they are actually really good questions.

The catch all is the only thing that keeps the legal system up. :) Without it, you really have nothing - its principles. Government come and go but do Rights? The problem is grouping ones Right (meaning leave my ass alone) and one of government construction.

The principle of "life, liberty, etc." is an easy principle but 99.9% most of us can agree when that is and isn't - we are just generally arguing about 0.1% of what that might and might not be.

If I walk over to you and bash you in the head for no reason it seems like we would all mostly agree as to what that is.

That is why you might have decision in one Appeals court that differs from a decision in another Appeals court.
 
Last edited:
#278
#278
LouderVol said:
but what does it mean when they haven't been codified? I see it as difficult to defend from either side if there isn't an understanding.
Click to expand...

Self defense is about as basic a thing as it gets. It's essentially understood as part of life itself. If you don't have some way putting that into language how do argue the difference between self defense and murder? (and make no mistake that can become messy business in court)

I hope I'm understanding what you're asking or my answers might not be helpful...apologies if that's the case
 
#279
#279
LSU-SIU said:
I can understand the confusion because 99% of the population believe laws are always written down and are exactly detailed defined. I don't think your questions are wrong - they are actually really good questions.

The catch all is the only thing that keeps the legal system up. :) Without it, you really have nothing - its principles. Government come and go but do Rights? The problem is grouping ones Right (meaning leave my ass alone) and one of government construction.

The principle of "life, liberty, etc." is an easy principle but 99.9% most of us can agree when that is and isn't - we are just generally arguing about 0.1% of what that might and might not be.

If I walk over to you and bash you in the head for no reason it seems like we would all mostly agree as to what that is.

That is why you might have decision in one Appeals court that differs from a decision in another Appeals court.
Click to expand...

but how often does the bashing in the head for NO reason actually happen?

what if I have a reason? its not a bad reason but its not great either?

what if its just a bloody nose as a result, is that treated as badly as if I fractured your skull?

what if I didn't mean for the punch to be that bad? you have a brittle bone disease or a previously fractured skull and my punch does WAY more damage than I was intending, or the situation called for?

I think usually what we disagree on is the punishment/outcome of a crime.
 
#280
#280
hndog609 said:
I hope I'm understanding what you're asking or my answers might not be helpful...apologies if that's the case
Click to expand...

I actually think he has some good questions.

Most people really don't get the formation of government and legal processes which exist today and why they exist. I was there for sure.

Now I have some dealings with multiple foreign courts/legal systems in the Caribbean. Many of the countries/states there are no longer a territory of England but they still recognize the English Common Law (as the United States generally does) and the Queen of England.... appeals can still go to the UK. What the common person thinks the law is, is usually different than what it actually is.

Here is an article explaining a little bit of the process.

http://nationwideradiojm.com/privy-council-happy-to-hear-caribbean-appeals/

What the common person believes is somehow everything changed in the late 1700s, legally actually very little changed. You had probably 5-10% of the population that kicked the corrupt King George out and his red coats - put The People in charge and keep everything running as is, generally.
 
#281
#281
hndog609 said:
Self defense is about as basic a thing as it gets. It's essentially understood as part of life itself. If you don't have some way putting that into language how do argue the difference between self defense and murder? (and make no mistake that can become messy business in court)

I hope I'm understanding what you're asking or my answers might not be helpful...apologies if that's the case
Click to expand...

I would say the right to defend oneself with equal force is probably understood and accepted.

but with if someone comes up and threatens me and or lays hands on me (grabs clothes) and I pull out my ubiquitous AR and blast him full of 50 holes? I would say that is a lot more difficult to define. and in the hunt for that line I would think any law is going to have to err to the side of taking away more of the protection you have to defend yourself vs allowing these gray areas.

little kid comes up and literally kicks my butt, I turn around and punch him pretty dang hard?

These mirco issues with definition (self defense vs assault) actually come become quiet macro issues at the scale of our society. and this is just on self defense which is widely accepted. what about other things? Like drugs or guns?
 
#282
#282
LouderVol said:
but how often does the bashing in the head for NO reason actually happen?

what if I have a reason? its not a bad reason but its not great either?

what if its just a bloody nose as a result, is that treated as badly as if I fractured your skull?

think usually what we disagree on is the punishment/outcome of a crime.
Click to expand...

My point was actually probably not written well, my point was more like you can't design a system based on a complex starting point. "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is something we can all agree on and you know.... 99.9+ % of the time we probably would agree.

Simply put, what happened in America in the late 1700s really didn't change anything meaningful other than kicking out the corrupt - the law remain intact. The Rights a person had in 1717 are generally the same Rights they have in 2017. Of course, the arms are a tad more accurate. :)

We're talking principles and foundation here. You will see the Supreme Court will try and not define things very often, they try to stay away from that because situations change, technology chances, etc. The standards have to be basic in nature. "Right to Free Speech", "Right to Arms", "Right to life and Liberty".

 
Last edited:
#283
#283
my whole point to this argument is that the law probably started with these natural rights at their heart. but as society and situations evolved and came up we have ended up with a government that limits our freedoms/liberties more than the Constitution/FF intended; but defining that line of when/where it becomes an issue is impossible as it is all shades of grey. and some people will read those shades of grey differently than others. so anyone saying that a natural right is being infringed upon should be getting a "yeah, but..." statement instead of all or nothing response. because typically when it is all or nothing you end up with nothing.
 
#284
#284
Septic said:
And yet here you are, inventing arguments and foisting presuppositions of what you want to believe, not what's being argued.

I'd wager that I own more guns on average than the blowhards here who pretend to be conservatives. You bark about others being triggered but can't help but make attacks personal, your emotions betray you.

getty_473048018_9706479704500120_74836.jpg
Click to expand...
nice try snowflake.

You think your argument has no repercussions. No 'unintended consequences'.

How sweet.
 
#286
#286
LouderVol said:
my whole point to this argument is that the law probably started with these natural rights at their heart. but as society and situations evolved and came up we have ended up with a government that limits our freedoms/liberties more than the Constitution/FF intended; but defining that line of when/where it becomes an issue is impossible as it is all shades of grey. and some people will read those shades of grey differently than others. so anyone saying that a natural right is being infringed upon should be getting a "yeah, but..." statement instead of all or nothing response. because typically when it is all or nothing you end up with nothing.
Click to expand...

Unless you have an example its hard to address this one I would say.

Lets just put it this way when it comes to firearm laws in this country, generally I think a good portion of them are unconstitutional, but many times they are not attacked or you have Appeals courts in more liberal parts of the States that don't want to call it like it is. The Supreme Court will probably let each district/state duke it out and from time to time strike upon them every once in a while.

Most of these unconstitutional gun laws the primary purpose is really to stop black Americans from getting them or holding on to them or tracking. Most of the people preaching the gun law stuff are the same ones preaching about inequality. Well, an innocent black guy in Chicago certainly has more of a reason to own a gun than me.... why in the heck are people trying to stop them by putting more regulation on them?

The whole thing is just stupid nonsense politics... of course, a good portion of the drug laws are similar as well. The good ole U.S. had no problem with drugs when G.W. was flying them in from central america.
 
#289
#289
norrislakevol said:
No, maybe you should. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Read the second amendment until it sinks in.
Click to expand...

You have to realize who you responded to. OBV, like armchair, wants us to live in a police state. Where only the police and military have firearms. That way, we can live in a society where government oppression can run rampant with no fear from its citizens. You know, a liberal utopia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#290
#290
BigOrangeTrain said:
You have to realize who you responded to. OBV, like armchair, wants us to live in a police state. Where only the police and military have firearms. That way, we can live in a society where government oppression can run rampant with no fear from its citizens. You know, a liberal utopia.
Click to expand...

Not true juice box. Never advocated such a thing. My issue remains assault rifles not handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Dumbass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#291
#291
GetSome! said:
.

2000 rounds a minute?!? Sensationalize much? You realize that the kind of weapons you are talking about here look something like this, right:

M61 Vulcan - Wikipedia

A FULLY AUTOMATIC M4 rifle (the military rifle upon which the AR platoform is based) has a fire rate of 700-900 rounds per minute. That is the MAXIMUM rate of fire, not the SUSTAINED rate of fire.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes... 10+ rounds per second. Perfect for hunting squirrels or home defense against unending levels of Nazi zombies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#292
#292
OuterBanksVol said:
Not true juice box. Never advocated such a thing. My issue remains assault rifles not handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Dumbass.
Click to expand...

What is the different between an assault rifle and any other rifle? Generally speaking, there really aren't any different. The "assault" rifle ban was a big political show.
If all you have is an issue with is "assault" rifles, you don't really have an issue at all. imo
 
Last edited:
#293
#293
LSU-SIU said:
What is the different between an assault rifle and any other rifle? Generally speaking, there really aren't any different. The "assault" rifle ban was a big political show.

If all you have an issue with is "assault" rifles, you don't really have an issue at all. imo
Click to expand...

One sounds scary
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#296
#296
LSU-SIU said:
What is the different between an assault rifle and any other rifle? Generally speaking, there really aren't any different. The "assault" rifle ban was a big political show.
If all you have is an issue with is "assault" rifles, you don't really have an issue at all. imo
Click to expand...

He hates black things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#297
#297
OuterBanksVol said:
Not true juice box. Never advocated such a thing. My issue remains assault rifles not handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Dumbass.
Click to expand...

Assault rifles are rifles that can go full auto and are already highly regulated/illegal without a federal permit. To my knowledge, they haven't been used in any mass shootings in this country.

The "assault weapons" used in these mass shootings are no functionally different from hunting rifles, which you admittedly have no issue with.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top